Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a long time issue and a little complicated so I'll attempt to condense.   Barclays account: held with them over 25yrs, opend in the 90's £6800 overdraft   15 years ago the account became a problem due to account holder due illness/company closing/long term disabilities.   No activity on the account other than what is stated below, card not used, balance always kept just under the o/d level so as not to incur further costs.   In those 15 yrs (2006)the account has been maintained each month by Barclays applying the o/d interest and the account holder paying that amount.  In the early years about £120 pm, then it went to £3per interest so worked out and around £90pm and late last year with the interest hike by the banks on O/d's it took the amount close to £180pcm    In  / around 2012 the account holder approached the bank with a view to receving some help, they were at that time somewhat ill, and registered as disabled. They asked that they convert the amount to a loan with them so that over time the balance would reduce. The Bank refused but instead put them through to another in-house lender, (woolwich) on internal line, they took the details but then didn't offer the loan.   Account holders health deteriorated but they insisted with their family members to continue to pay the overdraft, they were petrified of what may happen if they didn't.   In 2014 a SAR's was asked of Barclays which they sent but it didn't give much away, but importantly neither did it mention the customer going into the branch for the help.   In 2019 the customer via a third party who also obtained a third party mandate  approached the bank with a lengthy correspondence asking for help, they gave as much info as they could.   A month later then bank stated they believed they had not acted incorrectly as the account had been held to the good by the miniumum payments on the account being met, in short unless the account tripped they would not know there was a problem.   It was pointed out to the bank that under the terms of the original agreement and backed up by a letter from the bank way back as early as 2003 that the overdraft had been increased and that the account would be reviewed annually and that the account for the overdraft to remain in place would need to be kept in good order.    It's clear no annual review from at least 2006 had taken place as 'good order' was that the account was to be seen to be going in and out of credit whch of course was not the case, it hasn't been in the black since 2005/6   The bank refused to budge , also denied that the customer had been into the branch in 2012 and in any case as it was 2019 they didn't have to go that far back with a complaint if it had not been raised before.   Thats stage 1   A complaint was raised with the Ombudsman in late 2019, they accepted the complaint and lodged with Barclays that an account had been logged and that they (Ombudsman) were thus engaged on the account.   In the meantime the customer continued to maintain the account with Barclays as per the previous 13 years at the same time as providing info to the Ombudsman when it was requested.   Barclays wrote asking the customer to call them, but they had been put on notice in the original complaint that the Customer wanted all communication in writing, three times barclays asked for them to call despite them knowing the customer was 'vulnerable'  and still they continued the account knowing that the customer was only paying them out of the disability payments etc...   Barclays were sent 3 letters via signed delivery asking that all communication be put in writing, the customer wanted to establish a papertrail so no room for error or misinterpretation similar to Barclays 2012 denial that the customer had been into the branch, all 3 letters were signed for all 3 letters went unanswered.   Late 2019/early 2020 Barclays were out of desperation contacted on the phone but as the account had not been placed in collections' then nobody from the department could speak to the customer ????   In or around March 2020 the Ombudsman wrote to the customer stating they were a week away from a resolution and that they were just awaiting for it to be signed off by a senior investigator.   3 weeks later Covid hit but no resolution had been sent, a month or so later an email was sent to the Ombudsman requesting clarification and a month later they wrote back saying 'it's a week away (again) and they'll be in touch and then the case went cold, nothing heard and no return of phone calls to them.   After months of delays and after not hearing from the Ombudsman a letter was sent to one of their senior Ombudsman who replied that they'd take a look and be back in touch in a week and which they were and where they stated that the case: A: Should not have been taken on by the original investigator as it was above their remit, it should also have been picked up by another investigator when it was looked at during the initial process but again it wasn't. B: As the case had been incorrectly assigned it was then unassigned and placed on hold and for the following reason: C :  The case was of a sort that the banks and the Ombudsman have been discussing, no reasons for the discussion was given but as the case fell into this criteria it was on hold pending the discussions being concluded by the banks/ombudsman.   In short just over 12 months of the case first being allocated/engaged it had been unallocated/disengaged and placed on hold.   A second complaint was therefore lodged with the Ombudsman which was duly investigated and a nominal amount was offered for what they stated was poor service.  This amount was refused and the complaint was then sent to the Assessor (next step) but they wrote back stating that until the case had been finalised by the Ombudsman the assessor would not be able to investigate the complaint.   Updated were occasionally given by the Ombudsman on the state of the original complaint against Barclays but even that dropped into the abyss early 2021.    After a recent request to the Ombudsman to ask if the 2019 onwards discussions with the banks had been concluded an email was sent back saying that the case was just about to be reallocated (no answer as to if their discussions had concluded.   A week later an new case investigator was placed onto the case, they had written to Barclays and were awaiting their response.   1 week later they investigator came back with:   Barclays are offering to write the account off and to close the account.   And that is where they're stuck,  15yrs of overdrafts fees being paid, (almost 2.7 times the orignal amount of the o/d) with Barclays refusing to budge, then out of the blue came the offer.   The offer is on the table for a few weeks, but is it an offer to take?   When intial contact was made the bank with the complaint in 2019 they did nothing on the o/d account but very quickly (1 week) shut down one of the Barclayscard credit cards the customer had with them and placed the other at £250 limit (the limits before that were collectively 25k but had not been used for some years)     I have read somewhere that this 'credit card' balance reduction affected the credit worthability of a credit card holder, it's an indirect hit on them and this seems borne out as although the customer has a good credit record (not really facilitating it) they have been refused credit from a source they have always used and who they have never had any problem with before and this is only after the Barclaycard issue.     Sorry for the elognated post but for me, the offer whilst it may seem ok, well if it's their offer now and whilst they may withdraw the offer I think it has more legs? The customer should never have bee allowed to get where they've been for the last 15 years......Barclays have had considerably more than the original o/d and they want to stick to terms and conditions but then seem to flout them themselves by not conducting regular reviews or even as recent as knowing a customer is struggling and they still continue onwards unabated.     Deb                                                          
    • cash cowed blind. just run the sb date to infinity for 15yrs.     who are moorcrofts client please   and i bet you have a bank account and or a card with hsbc too...
    • It was for an HSBC personal bank loan of 20k Was passed onto metropolitan collection services which agreed the £1 payment plan and have paid them every month since and they have left me alone. The new DCA is moorcroft and balance is still roughly them same.  I have always paid the agreed £1 as if I got a ccj I would lose my job.
    • What type of Bank loan ?   When you defaulted with the Bank, how much did you owe approx ?   Who did you agree the £1 token payment arrangement with ?  Is this the last DCA you were dealing with, before the debt was transfered to a new DCA ?    Which DCA's have been involved ?    There are many DCA's who have the same parent company owners and also there have been many DCA's bought out by new owners who have taken on the debts.   What is the current debt balance approx ?   Was there ever a period, when you did not make any payments towards the debt ?
    • Yes the £1 per month payment was agreed at the time and happy to continue this as a ccj would stop me from working in my current employment so have always kept to this.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2828 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Caught on camera in a bus lane yards from turning into my street.

Comprehensive appeal shortlist specifically states (by omission) that if I swerve to avoid killing a family by entering a bus lane, I am liable to the fine. In fact ANY safety reason is excluded from appeal. I am not interested in looking for loopholes to avoid a fine or court, A serious safety reason made me enter the bus lane when I did, during an exceptional queue due to road works at the time. Recent meeting with LA reps and police highlighted the safety issue I speak of and as an advanced driver & rider with a full, clean license, I believe the police would support my view.

Can anyone tell me if an appeal would/could be considered/successful in such a case? I can share more/other details if required, but in summary:

Safety issues highlighted by the LA/police was the reason to fall short, by just a few metres, on entering a bus lane into my road, which is on a bend, causing a blind spot.

Why would an LA fine you for being safe or avoiding an accident? I'd pay a few tenners rather than cause injury or more. I'm confused as to why they won't even consider it.

 

Any feedback, advice, experience, especially speedily (as I just have a few days left before court and haven’t yet requested all evidence/video), would be appreciated. Maybe I should wait for court if I can’t appeal to the LA under their strict terms and put my case to a judge?

Cheers,

Steve

Edited by honeybee13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Readers, please ignore the last 3 words of the first line/sentence. It related to the thread title which has been moderated/changed, renderinmg the words senseless.

 

Alternatively, if the moderation/site team could remove these 3 words, that's fine.

 

New thread title fine, happy to be moderated.

Edited by honeybee13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would an LA fine you for being safe or avoiding an accident? I'd pay a few tenners rather than cause injury or more. I'm confused as to why they won't even consider it.

 

Because the contravention that relates to the PCN issue does not take into account any underlying, or mitigating circumstances.

 

You might have have mown somebody down by mounting a pavement to avoid crashing into a bus which was on your side of the road, but the LA have the right to persue you for 'stopping on, or over a footpath, or any part of a road other than a carriageway' whilst you gather your senses, reverse back to free the pedestrian from your bumper, check all other occupants of your vehicle are OK, then go administer first aid to the bus driver with the suspected heart attack.

 

And since you are willing and able to 'pay a few tenners'.....'rather than cause injury', they will take you at your word by fleecing you..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Honeybee. I do not understand your last sentence. Sounds like I'm being told off for something or being asked not to post something I should not have posted. Is there a misunderstanding?

 

Cheers, Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kiki1.

 

Thanks for reply.

Is it your view then, that I will be due the fine, whatever? Is this just a general nobody's view (no disrespect) or do you speak with some experience, expertise or authority? Does the area matter (Lewisham in my case). Would a court look at such mitigation which the PCN doesn't? What should/can I do if other than just pay up?

Thanks,

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Honeybee. I do not understand your last sentence. Sounds like I'm being told off for something or being asked not to post something I should not have posted. Is there a misunderstanding?

 

Cheers, Steve

 

Honeybee removed the words you asked to be removed from your post, and is asking you not to post in this manner again. It's no big deal, these things happen etc. It's just that it's better if thread titles accurately reflect the content of the post.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The comment was ambiguous (what it referred to) and unwarranted. Any relation to the original moderated title was well and respectively covered previously, in my initial reply. My original title was in no way offensive, merely a ploy to attract more viewers, which I graciously accepted, along with your choice of new thread title, and as you can see, I'm just posting/replying in a normal way. I'm no ciber terrorist you need to be watching and have given you no reason to suspect this.

Thanks,

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
The comment was ambiguous (what it referred to) and unwarranted. Any relation to the original moderated title was well and respectively covered previously, in my initial reply. My original title was in no way offensive, merely a ploy to attract more viewers, which I graciously accepted, along with your choice of new thread title, and as you can see, I'm just posting/replying in a normal way. I'm no ciber terrorist you need to be watching and have given you no reason to suspect this.

Thanks,

 

Steve

 

I know why you chose that thread title. As I said, cute. We can't allow it, but no big deal. I wish I could have let it stand - it was pretty funny.

 

We do not suspect you of being some kind of cyber terrorist, and I struggle to see how Honeybee's comment could be read as suggesting such a thing. Nor are you being watched any more closely than any other poster.

 

Seriously, chill. There's no real problem here. We've all got better things to do with our time than squabble about this.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it your view then, that I will be due the fine, whatever? Is this just a general nobody's view (no disrespect) or do you speak with some experience, expertise or authority? Does the area matter (Lewisham in my case). Would a court look at such mitigation which the PCN doesn't? What should/can I do if other than just pay up?

Thanks,

 

I doubt it would get anywhere near court (the final stage of one of these is the High Court), and anyway, you have to instigate this following the next round of negotiations which is PATAS. That in itself is a gamble since the adjuducators are apparently just like us, impartial and able to instantly figure out fact from fiction.

 

Edit.

 

Apologies, for some reason I was momentarily transported into a parallel universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, just found it myself. Thanks. Points 5.2 a, b, c are all relevant.

Assuming this site is being watched by those who issue PCN notices, in more general terms, would someone raise multiple points, layer them, focus on one (perhaps including other things)?

Is an apology customary (e.g. for needing a video to be taken)? Is there a ballpark length, format? How do I include photos, video if need be (or should I just say that such are available if required? Can I use email or does it need to be posted? If I run over, should I send a summary, saying more to follow very shortly? Do they use common sense to draw conclusions or is it more than their jobsworth and attitude (of defendant/mood of LA) influences decisions more than supporting evidence or safety etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Links to bsuccesful or model appeals would be fine, though an appeal which is very obvious, might be rubbish, yet still get revoked, so keen to see/be advised on a good literary appeal method. If anyone is willing to view my PCN and response very soon, I'd be grateful, but for reasons alluded tgo above, I don't want this being a public thing, yet at least.

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really did enter the bus lane to avoid mowing people down, no-one in their right mind would enforce the fine. If the strength of your defence is the nature of this safety issue you mention, why don't you tell us what happened?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of what I mentioned above. If I don't know how the system works, who is watching and what their motivation is, I'd rather plead the 5th right now. Given/pending that, I'm very willing to share or speak to someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I just googled "plead the 5th" and found out that it means, "you refuse to answer the question on the ground that your answer might incriminate you".

 

You are anonymous on this forum. I don't see how telling us the circumstances which caused you to enter the bus lane is going to incriminate you, but the bottom line is, if you don't tell, then no-one can tell you whether your case is worth fighting. Up to you, but if you want advice, you have to explain what happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because of what I mentioned above. If I don't know how the system works, who is watching and what their motivation is, I'd rather plead the 5th right now. Given/pending that, I'm very willing to share or speak to someone.

 

This forum (and all others on CAG) is monitored by site staff for the purposes of ensuring compliance with forum rules and also because many of us have ended up here through asking for advice with our own consumer issues, and as such can offer advice. We are not friends of debt collectors, local authorities, the DWP or anyone else who might be trying to hassle you.

 

So post what you like, but bear in mind that a) this is a public forum, and we can't control who views your posts and b) if you don't provide useful information, no-one can give you a useful answer.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a nutshell, my road is on a bend off the road in question. The bus lane has broken lines at my road, allowing vehicles to cross into my road. Whilst it is not ideal, due to the bend, providing there is no vehicle within close range, using the mirrors and looking over the shoulder would be OK for a good rider/driver.

Points of contention:

Most traffic and violators using the bus lane do so due to ignorance, opportunism, laziness, inattentiveness and nearly always to gain advantage and get further down the road more quickly.

I was turning into the side road and about 3m after the still photo was taken, it was my road.

So why didn’t I just wait those extra few metres?

· There were road works further ahead, causing extended tailbacks past my road entrance.

· To wait in the queue, up to the turning point, with traffic behind (cars, vans, lorries or whatever was there and whatever might come up behind as I waited) would not allow me to see the traffic in the bus lane either over my shoulder or in my offside mirror, when I wanted to turn. The only option would be to move at an angle, further lessening any mirror view and just hope there was no bus, taxi, motorcycle, emergency vehicle or pushbike. It is hardly a game a Russian roulette that should decide this. So, when I saw the queue was up to and beyond my exit, I entered the bus lane at a time and place that there was little bend and a clear view and no traffic. This was not very far from my exit either. The bus lane was clear behind and in front (i.e. my exit to my road was clear and safe).

· So, did I avoid an accident? If crossing a road blindfolded and getting away with it is not causing an accident, then no. Did I avoid a possible accident to the extent that no-one should take such a risk, then yes.

· The LA, neighbor-hood group and SNT police, in a meeti ng at which I was present (minutes available), raised the issue of youths travelling down the very straight I am talking about on in line skates and causing a serious hazard and danger. The police informed us that there was no law that dealt with whether the youths should be on the road or pathway but the youth club organizer said he would monitor them, as some were known to him. Youths have been hanging onto buses going down the very street I speak.

· The bus lane, in the direction of travel I was going, is on a steep downhill slope, attracting greater speeds for skaters, cyclists, joggers on the path which I cross and for normal traffic.

· As well as having a license for most vehicles, LGV, PCV, motorcycle, car etc. (i.e. I understand most road users).I am an advanced rider/driver in 3 categories of vehicle (passed all first time) and have a full, clean license and a logical interest in safety and am trained by the police, so when I say I believe that I did what I did in the interests of safety, I hope that I say so with some credibility. I would be happy to get police advice on whether they view my actions the same as I do, having been taught by the same institution and likely a similar view on road safety.

· I also have a simultaneous video of the incident of my own, proving that I entered the road I claim and was not going further down the road or trying to jump the queue, as I live there.

I’m sure you guys can write this much more clearly and shorter than this. Forgive the length. Any thoughts? The TRO has 3 references in the exceptions clause about safety/avoiding accidents which seem very interesting and relevent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in a nutshell, you used the bus lane because you would otherwise have been unable to turn in safely, after sitting in the queue.

 

It's a defence, but I'm not sure how it would work out. They might say that if you were unable to turn, then you ought to have driven on, found a safe place to turn around and gone back the other way.

 

There again, I wonder if the de minimus rule might come into play, if it was a minor breach in the interests of common sense. I'm really not sure how it will pan out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your nutshell is, 'one' way of putting it. 'Hitler wasn't that generally good' is true. Ali was, 'a' boxer, is true. Boxing is noble vs Boxing is 2 people barbarically trying to injure each other and has resulted in death. I guess it's how the adjudicating people see it. I just don't know how they decide on how to view it. If they expect someone to go to extreme and unrealistic (by anyone's standards) lengths to be perfect, then I can't compete as there is always something I could have done instead, e.g. go to a hotel just in case there's a queue/don't use the car etc.

 

A police car, council van, judge, I'm sure would all have done the same and most have (I have CCTV) gone a few metres early, safely to avoid an accident and to avoid a 20 minute wait before you can turn round. Would anyone likewise travel 2 miles or more round a different way to save 10 minutes of waiting in the queue to turn round or would people just do the quick, safe thing and go a few metres early. There is the real world and the theoretical world of obtaining funds, I guess. Do the adjudicators put themselves in the position of those they judge or do different rules apply to mere mortals?

 

P.S. even by going to the next turning point - a roundabout, and coming back on myself, I could not cross into my road safely as the traffic went past my road and I could not see the bus lane traffic. Even if a gap were left for me, I could not see the bus lane, either buses or bikes or skaters and they don't tend to bother noting such a gap or its implications. When the roadworks are not happening, the queue does not tend to go past my road and there are no other roads, so the problem does not exist and as I said, I wasn't motivated by queue jumping - I have footage of me entering the road. In other areas, they have exemption rules on no entry roads (e.g. due to roadworks) for habitants to drive in. I'm sure that if the situation on my road were seen and dealt with, there would have been a rule for residents on my street, (like a temporary sign 20m before my street saying access only for street X habitants, but most policies don't go to such lengths. Maybe they just think it’s better to just to deal with any one off incident as they happen I suppose.

 

N.B. There is another part of the same road where entering the bus lane is crucial to avoid an accident. Should I raise this anywhere? Parked cars legitimately park on the other side, causing cars from the other direction to drive on the wrong (my) side of the road for a while – whether they wait for me or not. If I stop, cars behind will hit me as they are not expecting it. It may well not be my fault, but such a cold, theoretical response will put me in hospital if I listen. Such incidents should be addressed. All traffic users understand that you clearly enter the bus lane, including the police. If the LA saw it, (and I’m sure they drive down the road themselves regularly), they would in practice, amend or excuse it, but in reality/theory, they won’t, unless an accident happens or it is raised officially.

 

Don't understand, 'de minimus'? Do you suggest I just raise every issue I can and hope something sticks, stick to a/the key point? Raise any relevant TROs, plead common sense to revoke it or what? How detailed in evidence should I go at the next point, as it will take a lot of work to get everything ready?

I think I should ask immediately and without prejudice, for any/all their evidence (i.e. the video). Yes?

Thanks again.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about traffic law, but "de minimus" basically means "the law does not concern itself with trivialities".

 

In other words, a minor technical breach of the law done for common sense reasons that most people would accept as sensible should not carry a penalty. I cannot speak to whether this approach would be useful in your case, I'm just explaining the term.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Interesting.

I do appreciate that several people have responded and quickly.

Just want feedback on the following:

How would you appeal? Brief with option to detail more. Attach anything straight away or wait to be asked.

Anything else I should know/be advised on appealing.

Thanks

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

My name is spelt wrong btw. Is this significant?

The TRO's have clear grounds for exclusion, unlike the 5 grounds for appeal on the enforcement notice, which does not refer to any TRO. Is this fair?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...